Sorry for the slow response. Been a busy couple of days :) > No, they wouldn't. They don't. See my response to lmm here I don't think lmm and I disagree. I s

Sorry for the slow response. Been a busy couple of days :) > No, they wouldn't. They don't. See my response to lmm here I don't think lmm and I disagree. I said "[The underlying principle of Many Worlds] is that there is a singular wave function, which is the true reality". lmm says: "The only thing that MWI demands we take as metaphysically real is the wavefunction". I think this is expressing the same thing in different terms. I said: "The things we refer to as "worlds" are massively-complicated entanglements and superpositions within that wave function". lmm says: "Given a wavefunction like 1/sqrt2(|experimenter who observed a live cat> + |experimenter who observed a dead cat>) ...". Again, I think our descriptions are in fairly close agreement. I think lmm's description is a good summary of how the "worlds" in Many Worlds are viewed by Many Worlds advocates: "in the same way that people who hear a particular pattern of sound might find it convenient to think of it as a chord of two or three notes". The "worlds" aren't actually fundamental to the theory, but rather an emergent phenomena from them. The reason for the label "Many Worlds" is not because they are the fundamental concept. It's because it's the most... interesting element from a pop-sci marketing angle.